Possible Benefits of LDL Cholesterol -- It Isn't Necessarily AllBad

Summary:

Combined with exercise, cholesterol appears to play a role in
contributing to MUSCLE GAIN [emphasis added], Riechman says. The key
here is working out – it doesn’t mean sitting in front of a television
all day thinking you don’t have to worry about cholesterol levels.

“Our findings show that the restricting of cholesterol – while in the
process of exercising – appears to affect building muscle mass in a
negative manner. If it’s true, as our findings suggest, that
cholesterol may play a key role in *muscle* *repair*, we need to know
exactly how that happens. And because cholesterol is negatively
associated with cardiovascular health, we need further study in this
area."

"It shows that there is still a lot about cholesterol that we don’t know.”

================================================== ===========================

http://dmc-news.tamu.edu/templates/?a=5549&z=15


Surprise - Cholesterol May Actually Pose Benefits, Study Shows

Tuesday, January 08, 2008

If you’re worried about high cholesterol levels and keeping
heart-healthy as you get older, don’t push aside bacon and eggs just
yet. A new study says they might actually provide a benefit.



Researchers at Texas A&M University have discovered that lower
cholesterol levels can actually reduce muscle gain with exercising. Lead
investigator Steven Riechman, assistant professor of health and
kinesiology, and Simon Sheather, head of the Department of Statistics,
along with colleagues from The Johns Hopkins Weight Management Center
and the Northern Ontario School of Medicine, have recently had their
findings published in the Journal of Gerontology.



Bottom line: Before you have that second helping of oatmeal, it’s very
possible that cholesterol may not be the mean Mr. Evil thing we tend to
believe it is.



“We were not expecting to get these kind of results,” Riechman explains.



“We need further research in this area, but what we found could really
make us look differently at cholesterol, especially as it relates to a
vigorous workout.”



The team studied 55 men and women, ages 60-69, who were healthy
non-smokers and were able to perform exercise testing and training.



Three days a week for 12 weeks, participants performed several
exercises, including stretching, stationary bike riding and vigorous
weight lifting. Those who had to miss one or more sessions all
conducted make-up sessions so that by the study’s end, the entire group
had engaged in uniform activities. Also, all participants consumed
similar meals.



At the conclusion of the study, the researchers found that there was a
significant association of dietary cholesterol and change in strength.
In general, those with higher cholesterol intake also had the highest
muscle strength gain.



Cholesterol circulating in the blood also appeared to have contributed
to greater muscle gain in the participants, Riechman said.



“One possible explanation is through cholesterol’s important role in the
inflammation process,” he noted.



“As you exercise, your muscles can become sore because they are
rebuilding muscle mass. More cholesterol may result in a more robust
inflammatory response. We know that inflammation in some areas, such as
near the heart, is not good, but for building muscles it may be
beneficial, and cholesterol appears to aid in this process.”



Riechman said that subjects who were taking cholesterol-lowering drugs
while participating in the study showed lower muscle gain totals than
those who were not.



“Needless to say, these findings caught us totally off guard,” he explains.



“From here, we need to look at a number of questions, such as what
exactly happens to cholesterol while you are exercising? What role does
protein intake have in all of this? What we really need to do is to
trace cholesterol the moment it goes into the muscles.”



Combined with exercise, cholesterol appears to play a role in
contributing to muscle gain, Riechman says. The key here is working out
– it doesn’t mean sitting in front of a television all day thinking you
don’t have to worry about cholesterol levels.



“Our findings show that the restricting of cholesterol – while in the
process of exercising – appears to affect building muscle mass in a
negative manner. If it’s true, as our findings suggest, that
cholesterol may play a key role in muscle repair, we need to know
exactly how that happens. And because cholesterol is negatively
associated with cardiovascular health, we need further study in this
area. It shows that there is still a lot about cholesterol that we
don’t know.”



Contact: Steve Riechman at (979) 862-3213 or email at
or Keith Randall at (979) 845-4644 or email at

Jim wrote:

Combined with exercise, cholesterol appears to play a role in
contributing to MUSCLE GAIN [emphasis added], Riechman says. The key
here is working out – it doesn’t mean sitting in front of a television
all day thinking you don’t have to worry about cholesterol levels.

Actually, so does insulin. Insulin *both* increases fat gain and the
ability to put on muscle.

It's one of those freaking annoying facts of biology that people into
strength training have to deal with - putting on muscle and putting on
fat "go together".

“Our findings show that the restricting of cholesterol – while in the
process of exercising – appears to affect building muscle mass in a
negative manner. If it’s true, as our findings suggest, that
cholesterol may play a key role in *muscle* *repair*, we need to know
exactly how that happens. And because cholesterol is negatively
associated with cardiovascular health, we need further study in this area."

"It shows that there is still a lot about cholesterol that we don’t know.”

We've known for *decades* that cholesterol is what the body makes
steroid hormones out of. It seems obvious to me that too low
cholesterol can throw the whole endocrine system out-of-whack.

The question is what is "too low." I don't know and I don't think
anyone else does either.

Personally, this is why statins disturb me. If my liver is trying to
make cholesterol, I don't see why it's a good thing to interfere with
that. Seems to me unless something is specifically broken with one's
biochemical feedback loops, it's better to trust them to do their thing
than screw with them.

--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

On Jan 10, 10:58 am, Jackie Patti wrote:
Jim wrote:
Combined with exercise, cholesterol appears to play a role in
contributing to MUSCLE GAIN [emphasis added], Riechman says. The key
here is working out - it doesn't mean sitting in front of a television
all day thinking you don't have to worry about cholesterol levels.

Actually, so does insulin. Insulin *both* increases fat gain and the
ability to put on muscle.

It's one of those freaking annoying facts of biology that people into
strength training have to deal with - putting on muscle and putting on
fat "go together".

Then, perhaps it's about cycling. Lose fat while preserving muscle
Then add muscle while gaining fat. Then, lose fat while perserving
muscle. Wash, rinse, repeat. But I wouldn't eat like a powerlifter
for all the muscle/money in the world.

"Our findings show that the restricting of cholesterol - while in the
process of exercising - appears to affect building muscle mass in a
negative manner. If it's true, as our findings suggest, that
cholesterol may play a key role in *muscle* *repair*, we need to know
exactly how that happens. And because cholesterol is negatively
associated with cardiovascular health, we need further study in this area."

"It shows that there is still a lot about cholesterol that we don't know."

We've known for *decades* that cholesterol is what the body makes
steroid hormones out of. It seems obvious to me that too low
cholesterol can throw the whole endocrine system out-of-whack.

The question is what is "too low." I don't know and I don't think
anyone else does either.

The Eades suggest that optimum for total mortality is between 160
and 220 total cholesterol, with good ratios.

I wonder (not enough to read the whole study) whether particle
size was considered. We're pretty sure that small ones are the
problem LDLs. We're pretty sure that big ones are not. I wonder
if big ones go to muscle growth and little ones go to plaque
formation? There's an area for an enterprising researcher.

Personally, this is why statins disturb me. If my liver is trying to
make cholesterol, I don't see why it's a good thing to interfere with
that. Seems to me unless something is specifically broken with one's
biochemical feedback loops, it's better to trust them to do their thing
than screw with them.

Concur with your take on statins. Add that they don't spare HDL and
frequently worsen ratios and decrease LDL particle size. Add to that
the lack of protection for anyone who isn't male, over 50 and already
had a heart attack. At least in observational studies. Be a long time
before I let a doc put me on statins, regardless of how cute their
advertisments might be.

Don't you notice, after a checkup with your family practitioner, that
while you're in ketosis your cholesterol is low no matter how much or
what kind of fat you eat? Presumably this low reading is because
your .body is burning up all the fat immediately as soon as it comes
in.

The Eades suggest that optimum for total mortality is between 160 and 220 total cholesterol, with good ratios.

I've never had a cholesterol problem (blood fat in general yes, though
not high cholesterol), but in ketosis my LDL is even lower and my
"good" cholesterol sky high: probably not the "good ratio" mentioned
in Eades, but I'd understood that there's also a theory that high HDL
will remove plaque from arteries so that, over the years, my heart-
related risk may have reversed itself.

These comments of mine are by no means professional medical advice,
but low-carb people like myself must have some interesting questions
to ask about that report.

On Jan 10, 3:47 pm, ElBob-O wrote:
Don't you notice, after a checkup with your family practitioner, that
while you're in ketosis your cholesterol is low no matter how much or
what kind of fat you eat? Presumably this low reading is because
your .body is burning up all the fat immediately as soon as it comes
in.

The Eades suggest that optimum for total mortality is between 160 and 220 total cholesterol, with good ratios.

I've never had a cholesterol problem (blood fat in general yes, though
not high cholesterol), but in ketosis my LDL is even lower and my
"good" cholesterol sky high: probably not the "good ratio" mentioned
in Eades, but I'd understood that there's also a theory that high HDL
will remove plaque from arteries so that, over the years, my heart-
related risk may have reversed itself.

Good ratios are High HDL, low triglycerides. If you have high HDL, and
low LDL, your ratios are probably okay. High HDL generally solves all
ratios for LDL particle size and risk.

FWIW: my experience with cholesterol is high LDL when eating sugar.
Greatly reduced when not. Regardless of fat content in the diet.
But we know, of course, that dietary cholesterol is only 5% of the
total
while your body makes the rest. So, it shouldn't be that surprising
that
if you set your internal cholesterol mechanism to proper function that
dietary cholesterol wouldn't be an issue, assuming that cholesterol
isn't a big con (as Anthony Colpo and Malcolm Kendrick would have
you believe in two very detailed books).

These comments of mine are by no means professional medical advice,
but low-carb people like myself must have some interesting questions
to ask about that report.